Abstract
The year 2005 meant a paradigm shift in Romanian education. Over the existing status at that time, something new was placed: quality assurance. This new and unique element ought to propel the system "energy levels" higher than those existing at the time. 12 years have passed since the new element was placed in the Romanian educational system, with inherent effects on the evolution of the system and especially on the educational entities that make up the system. The essential objective of this approach was to achieve, at the educational system level, what we call "quality assurance in education". At the same time, at the level of each educational component (school, faculty, and university) the expectation was the achievement of quality assurance at the organization level. Which means quality assurance „of education "- other than quality assurance "in education" (at the level of education system). The fundamental question is obviously: Has that goal been achieved? Where we are? Quality assurance in education and, respectively, quality assurance of education succeeded or became a bridge too far? Our work attempts to analyze this situation and to pray what it really means to ensure quality in education. "A Bridge to Far" is a story about a memorable failure in a global clash. Is there a similarity between the two approaches? We'll see!
Keywords: Educationsystemqualitymanagement
Introduction
Pan - European events held at the level of education ministers in the European countries since 1998 have increasingly highlighted the need to implement, in the educational systems, a successful and successful approach in the economic and business fields: quality management. The moment "t0" can be considered, in our opinion, the Bergen Meeting (2005), as it has set out the main milestones in implementing the specific concepts, methods and elements of quality management in European education systems. It was preferred to adopt this approach as "quality assurance of education/in education" (China, 2015), although quality management is, according to the literature, clearly more comprehensive, quality assurance being only a part of it. In Romania, it was implemented hastily, "Quality Assurance in Education", about the same time as those set out in the abovementioned meeting.
At European level, educational benchmarks have been developed (CQAF – EQARF, EQF, Europe 2020 Strategy, etc.) with the main goal of a coherent approach to quality assurance in all education systems across Europe. At the same time, specific legislation on quality assurance in education has been developed in Romania, inspectors - evaluators have been trained in the application of this legislation, over 7000 schools (in the pre-university education system) have been evaluated for authorization / accreditation.
However, the qualitative leap regarding the evolution of the Romanian educational system following the implementation of this approach for 11 years was almost insignificant. This is visible through simple comparative analyzes of the results obtained by Romania in international tests - important benchmarks in education (PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS, 2018). In this paper we analyze some of the causes of this approach, which, in our opinion, failed in relation to the initial objectives and the requirements established at EU level in the field. At the same time, we propose concrete solutions to eliminate the identified causes.
Problem Statement
Quality assurance in education was an approach implemented in the Romanian educational system as a result of the pan - European events in the field of education, held around 2000. This endeavour was initiated in the European space, also as a result of the findings of a significant gap in this area with other educational systems in the world that have been striving to implement this approach since the 1990s.
Terms, concepts, definitions
Although we currently have access to a vast literature on Quality Management, however, we can see that literature dedicated to
a)
b)
c)
d)
Of course, these components cannot be separated because an essential aspect of quality management is that of a systemic approach that is valid for all four components, in the form of an integrated approach.
An "aspect" of the separation of the four sides is seen in the case of the implementation of quality management in educational processes. As a rule, "Quality Management in Education" (and "Quality of Education Management") is associated in the current expression only with "quality assurance in education" (and, respectively, the concept of "quality assurance of education"). This approach is especially found in European education systems and, most importantly, in community documents that regulate this issue. It is interesting and almost inexplicable why the "initiators" of the approach preferred the "extraction" of the quality assurance (for the education segment) from the established concept, the quality management!
It would be useful, in our view, to investigate the causes for which the Community Courts (the periodic conferences of the Ministers of Education in the Member States) accepted the ENQA (2018) proposal for exclusive use of the concept of "quality assurance", although the quality management specialists know too well that this can’t exist without the other three components mentioned above.
In Romania, the action was "institutionalized" by a normative act that led to the establishment of almost unique regulation in the Romanian society. Thus, besides the construction sector, the education sector became, after 2005, the second sector with a regulated approach from the perspective of quality.
For obvious reasons arising from the need to use these terms correctly, we will continue to outline some of the concepts that we find in the glossary of terms of the most „shaky” quality management agency: the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and the Standard ISO 9000: 2015, dedicated to the concepts and terms used in this important field (ASQ - American Society for Quality, 2018).
A simple analysis of the definitions presented leads us to the conclusions of at least "interesting".
Quality assurance
Let’s suppose that a school is accredited. It results that it will give confidence to stakeholders that the school meets the quality requirements formulated / established by that standard, that is, to say the minimum quality level! Accreditation of all schools in the system will give confidence to society in the fact that the system works to the quality requirements formulated by the accreditation standard,
Therefore,
It is noted that in the definitions formulated by the normative act, the client's requirements are missing from the "equation".
The problem of this concept in the education system is a major one because it is very difficult for the teaching staff to be convinced or understand that in reality pupils and students are not their products and that they are their clients. It was very difficult to accept the concept of the beneficiary, however, the advance is still insufficient, in our opinion, because a correct approach is the client approach!
Research Questions
In the 12 years of "quality assurance in education / education" many schools (many thousands of schools!) have been evaluated and the costs of these evaluations represent considerable sums. According to GD no. 712/2009, the tariff of: 1) authorization is in the amount of 2 basic salaries corresponding to the salary scale, gross amount, for the position of professor S, didactic degree I and seniority over 40 years in state pre-university education; 2) accreditation is in the amount of 3 basic salaries corresponding to the salary scale, gross amount, for the position of teacher S, didactic degree I and a seniority over 40 years in state pre-university education; 3) The periodical evaluation is in the amount of 1.5 basic salaries corresponding to the salary scale, gross amount, for the position of teacher S, didactic degree I and seniority over 40 years in state pre-university education. There is no explanation as to why this computational "algorithm" was chosen from our point of view without any link to the evaluation process of the schools. The ARACIP (RAQAPE) public data show that over 7000 evaluations were made over the 2007-2017 period. Let's make the following calculation: Let's assume that the 7000 evaluations were for authorization only and the authorization it’s about 1100 euro (according to the data published by ARACIP at http://oldsite.edu.ro/index.php/articles/ c775 /). It follows that for the 7000 authorizations we spent: 7000 x 1100 = 7,700,000 euro! A considerable amount! Obviously, smaller than the real one! (ARACIP – RAQAPE, n.d.).
And yet, after many thousands of schools evaluated, reports, findings, etc., there are no initiatives from the "educational system" to carry out practical studies on, firstly,
Here are some possible questions in this regard, which can be the basis of some important research on the evolution of the educational system under the influence of this approach:
Purpose of the Study
The main objective of this analysis is to alert the consumption of considerable resources (material, human, etc.) used to implement the quality assurance in education / of education without the expected positive effects! At the same time, another important objective is the formulation of proposals to improve this approach so that quality assurance can actually become a driver of the evolution of the Romanian educational system.
4.1. Quality assurance in education - realities, perspectives
The positive effects of this approach would have to be found, first of all, in an effective improvement in
- Effective and effective functioning of the schools in the system or, at least, most of them, respectively, of a crucial critical mass for the educational system;
- Improving the educational services offered by schools in the system, with straight effects in improving the results obtained by students at the completion of the study cycles;
- Effective improvement of results obtained at system level, internationally established testing in the field (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, 2018) between two successive editions.
The results obtained in the last three PISA editions confirm the conclusion of mediocre results, although a significant percentage of the evaluated schools obtained the "ARACIP - RAQAPE quality certificate. The functioning of schools in the system has not improved since the introduction of quality assurance in education / education.
This desideratum has not been achieved and the key objective of quality assurance is becoming more and more difficult to achieve, becoming a "far removed bridge"! It is a reality that, if it wasn’t accepted, the negative effects would probably exponentially multiply! What are the causes of this failure?
Research Methods
Considering the aforementioned aspects, regarding, first of all, the inappropriate use of specific quality management concepts, other than in business environments, we approached in our paper elements of qualitative research, duplicated by comparative analysis.
Results of comparative analyzes, and qualitative research applied to the quality assurance of education in Romania (secondary education)
The qualitative research elements and comparative analyzes have led us to identify the causes of the failure to achieve the main objective of the quality
- The definitions formulated by the basic legislation in the field were, in our view, the main cause of the failure, because, as we have seen from a "mirror" comparison of these definitions, the definitions formulated in normative acts are different and / or defective;
- Institutional Evaluation Standards are constructed in terms of "at least" - becoming, in reality, mandatory rules for schools. "At least" is a minimum level, which will force schools in the system to formulate their development goals, correlated with the requirements of the mandatory standard - a minimum level of quality!
- Specific legislation in this field speaks of quality assurance in education / of education without making a distinction between the two syntagma (generating obvious confusion)! For example, in the official "statements" of the agency responsible for quality assurance, it is clear: "...
- The center of gravity of these "standards" is significantly shifted to the organization and functioning of the school (infrastructure, spaces, procedures, etc.), with a disproportionate burden on the organization and functioning of the school, to the detriment of educational effectiveness and school management;
- Institutional assessment standards in the current form are genuinely bureaucratic by: the very large number of redundant and irrelevant requirements for the educational process, its superposition with other school referential, the faulty external evaluation as it does not respect any of the generally applicable principles of the external evaluation (second part - assessment by the clients of the organization or third part- evaluation carried out by an independent organization), given that the agency is subordinated to the Ministry of Education and the evaluators are persons active in the system. We mean that valuers are, for the most part, active in the system. During the evaluation process, these experts interrupt their activity at the school where they work and go to the schools they evaluate. In quality management, the general principle in the external audit activity is that of "third part" assessment, to carry out a relevant and objective audit.
Findings
Although the Romanian educational system was among the first educational systems in the European space that implemented the quality assurance in education and among the only ones that have fully implemented this approach at the level of the secondary education it is noted that the quality assurance in education with all the positive elements mentioned, it was not a successful move, its essential objective being more and more distant. On the basis of the elements we have identified, we have put forward several proposals for improvements so that the quality assurance of secondary education is actually an achievable approach with positive results.
Quality assurance in the educational system - proposals to improve the approach
- Management of school organizations;
- Quality of teachers;
- Outputs from educational processes (educational cycles) reflected in terms of results and, in particular, pupils' skills.
Clearly, there are many more improvements that can be formulated. We've succeeded in penciling a few, which means the problem remains open. Any of the five improvements mentioned above can consistently reconfigure the quality of education approach and can greatly contribute to reducing bureaucracy in the system.
Conclusion
The approach
References
- ARACIP – RAQAPE (n.d.). Conceptual and Methodological Milestones on the National Management and Quality Assurance System, page 3. Retrieved from http://oldsite.edu.ro/index.php/articles/c628/
- ASQ, American Society for Quality (2018). Retrieved from https://asq.org/quality-resources/quality-glossary
- China, R. (2015). Quality management in pre-university education. University Publishing House, Bucharest, pp. 262-268.
- CNDIPT (2018). National Center for the Development of Vocational and Technical Education (2018). Retrieved from http://www.tvet.ro/
- Dragulănescu, N.G, China, R., Militaru, C., & Colceag, F. (2014). Quality Assurance of education - a proactive approach. Bucharest: Standardization Publishing House.
- EFQM, (2018). The European Foundation for Quality Management. Retrieved from http://www.efqm.org/
- ENQA, (2018). The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://enqa.eu/
- EQARF, (2018). European quality assurance reference framework for vocational education and training. Retrieved from http://www.tvet.ro/Anexe/5.Anexe/5.3enqavet/5.3.Anexa%202.pdf
- EQF, (2018). What is the European Qualification Framework? Retrieved from https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/ro/europass-support-centre/other-questions/what-european-qualification-framework-eqf
- Europe 2020 strategy (2018). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/framework/europe-2020-strategy_en#howisthestrategymonitored
- GEO no. 75/2005. Emergency Ordinance no. 75/2005 on the quality assurance of education. Retrieved from https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/g42denbv/ordonanta-de-urgenta-nr-75-2005-privind-asigurarea-calitatii-educatiei
- Bergen, Meeting, (2005). Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/cid101762/ministerial-conference-bergen-2005.html
- PIRLS (2018). - Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/pirls.
- PISA (2018).- Programme for International Student Asessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ . Citation in text: (PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS).
- Sallis, E. (1992). Total Quality Management in Education. Retrieved from https://herearmenia.files.wordpress.comebookscluborg__total_quality_management_in_education.pdf
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
15 August 2019
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-066-2
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
67
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-2235
Subjects
Educational strategies,teacher education, educational policy, organization of education, management of education, teacher training
Cite this article as:
Chină*, R. (2019). Quality Assurance In Secondary Education - "A Bridge Too Far"?. In E. Soare, & C. Langa (Eds.), Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, vol 67. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 318-327). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.03.38